Last piece was a cam about halfway across the traverse. I went up and cleaned the gear and I was able to retrieve it without putting myself too far over to the left (I didnt have to really enter the traverse to pull it).

Yes he had climbed it before, and he told me before he had not even been warmed up when he did it (unlike this time) so just didnt think too much about putting in some more gear on the traverse, but he did say he could have put more in.

He definitely could have hit his head harder. That was my point earlier. Hand protected head. Bad hand, better head.

I'm not going to argue that wearing a helmet wouldn't have been a good thing, but rolsen also has a point, in that there are other things that would also have affected the outcome other than wearing a helmet. Placing gear would also have been a good thing (yes there is gear to place. If you can't hang out and place it, don't lead the thing). Managing how you fall to avoid going upside down also rather good. Making good judgements whilst climbing is immeasurable valuable. When the advantages of wearing your helmet outweigh the disadvantages is just one of them. There is obviously more than one lesson to be learnt from this accident.

I agree Wendy, and as I said before.. I am not saying a helmet was the only solution to the problem.

Not in the least. I just said that they see the benefit of wearing a helmet now!

Were he wearing a helmet, his head probably wouldnt have taken the hit it did. That part is clear. Yes he could have done many other things.

I guess that argument could be extended even to what you said before about not even doing little routes with higher danger levels, but then the argument starts to get well and truly off point. I never stated the helmet would have fixed the hand or rib issue. He probably still would have protected his head and injured his hand.

But had he been wearing a helmet, he *probably* would have done less damage to his head (actually, maybe more seeing as the helmet was not buttered).

And regarding the disadvantages of wearing a helmet.. Im not really sold on those. Depends on the helmet I guess but my Elios is comfy, lite, and low-profile enough that I forget Im wearing it. The only issue I have with it (besides looking like an utter knob) is that I sweat alot more wearing it than if I wasnt. Thats my own experience with my own helmet though. To each, his own.

My original statement stands though, those involved will be wearing helmets a hell of a lot more now. And I do not believe it will be detrimental in any way, at any time.

First image that comes to my mind when talking about helmets actually is Ueli Steck in (I think) the Reel Rock Tour 10 where they showed a few years ago I think on Annapurna where rockfall hit him on the head. Ripped his helmet open and he was shaken up. Doubt he would have survived if he wasnt wearing one. EDIT: might have been a fall rather than rockfall. Moot point, he took a hit to the head and the helmet wore the brunt of it.

But I dont think this topic should become a debate on helmets, there are other threads for that.

On 8/03/2011 kieranl wrote:>Gavo, there's no point responding to rolsen1 on this; he's an anti-helmet>nazi. You've had an experience and taken lessons from it, that's good.>The other lesson, as Wendy said, is to avoid crappy little climbs like>Loboff that can hurt you except as fillers.

I'm no more "anti" than tnd is "pro" - its not that I'm anti-helmets but rather sick of climbers who either don't place pro or don't know how to or take stupid risks, hurt themselves then say "I'll wear a helmet from now on" - unfortunately a helmet can't protect you from yourself.

btw I totally agree that Gavo and davidn and their group should always wear helmets whenever climbing - they should also find a mentor if they don't have one

The other point I thought of on the day re gear was did he not place gear because he couldn't hang around and/or find it and if so did he consider what implications that might have had for his second?
On this route not placing gear on the traverse would be an advantage for the second as the rope could be brought back around the top, over the overhang meaning the second could have the rope above them all the way across the traverse, but Larry discovered the implications of this for the leader!
If he had made it across and not pulled the rope around the top or placed a bit of gear at the end of the traverse his second may have been the one to suffer the consequences of a massive pendulum. I wonder had Larry even considered his second, or had the testosterone taken over?

Don't blame Loboff, thank Loboff for teaching an inexperienced climber a few important lessons. He and his mates will now make more informed decisions about placing gear and wearing helmets. The odd broken bone is very instructional; happily there shouldn't be any permanent damage from this accident.

On 8/03/2011 davidn wrote:>Nick Satan, created today to try and avoid being ignored. Mods, this is>obviously an alter-ego of a rabid troll. Cheers.

Wow, you even know who everyone is!

Mods, maybe its time we had IP addresses associated with posts so that people won't be wrongly accused of posting under other accounts and so that those who do will be obvious to everyone and not just davidn.

On 7/03/2011 gordoste wrote:>Spoke to him yesterday, he drank a lot of beer that night but woke up at>4am in a world of pain (breathing is not normally painful even if you have>had a skinful). Belayer drove him to hospital and he got X-rays which showed>2 broken ribs and broken hand.>
The kid attempts to treat 3 broken bones and a possible concussion, by drinking lots of beer?!?!?!

Hey, you know that "Trad climber of the year award" which rock mag can't find candidates for? I reckon I have a nomination............the young lad sounds well 'ard!

On 8/03/2011 rolsen1 wrote:>>I'm no more "anti" than tnd is "pro" - its not that I'm anti-helmets but rather sick of >climbers who either don't place pro or don't know how to or take stupid risks, hurt >themselves then say "I'll wear a helmet from now on" - unfortunately a helmet can't >protect you from yourself.

Pull the other one. I might take you seriously if you didn't start spouting off without provocation.

I find it a bit hard to swallow that the same people who go on and on about lack of experience are the first to put the boot in when someone makes a legitimate mistake. If you have never made mistakes and errors of judgement yourself then you are not experienced. Also, your statements can easily be used to support regulation of climbing (or more likely, compulsory rescue insurance for outdoor enthusiasts).
The process of gaining experience is not a painless one. Constructive ideas on prevention of accidents is great. Suggesting that people have to be certain of success before trying something is really counter-productive.

On 8/03/2011 Pat B wrote:>The other point I thought of on the day re gear was did he not place gear>because he couldn't hang around and/or find it and if so did he consider>what implications that might have had for his second?
I was Larrys second the first time he did Loboff. I chose to back off once I was at the start of the traverse and able to see the pendulum I could face if I fell.>On this route not placing gear on the traverse would be an advantage for>the second as the rope could be brought back around the top, over the overhang>meaning the second could have the rope above them all the way across the>traverse, but Larry discovered the implications of this for the leader!>If he had made it across and not pulled the rope around the top or placed>a bit of gear at the end of the traverse his second may have been the one>to suffer the consequences of a massive pendulum. I wonder had Larry even>considered his second, or had the testosterone taken over?

On 9/03/2011 gordoste wrote:>If you have never made mistakes and errors of judgement>yourself then you are not experienced.
With no disrespect intended to "Larry" who I have never met and I was not there at the time of the accident, there are mistakes and errors of judgement like getting benighted, having to bail in a thunderstorm, leaving your belay device at home, losing skin on a slab, etc that most climbers will make at some stage which makes them more experienced...

...But then there are MISTAKES and ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT like gunning it across a badly protected overhanging hand-traverse and coming off resulting in broken bones that the vast majority of climbers will happily never make in their whole climbing lives. Making such MISTAKES and ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT is not a rite of passage to the status of "experienced".

I have just finished reading Ed Viesturs "No Shortcuts to the Top" which I thought shone a well-framed light on developing an inner-dialogue about levels of acceptable risk.

On 9/03/2011 gordoste wrote:>I find it a bit hard to swallow that the same people who go on and on about>lack of experience are the first to put the boot in when someone makes>a legitimate mistake. If you have never made mistakes and errors of judgement>yourself then you are not experienced. Also, your statements can easily>be used to support regulation of climbing (or more likely, compulsory rescue>insurance for outdoor enthusiasts).>The process of gaining experience is not a painless one. Constructive>ideas on prevention of accidents is great. Suggesting that people have>to be certain of success before trying something is really counter-productive.>

There's a difference between being certain of success and making sensible route choices when pushing your limits. It doesn't take years of experience to see that loboff will be pumpy to protect, pulling up to see the crack will be strenuous, falling off will result in a pendulum and as a consequence, that there are many safer 16s around. This is called using your brain and thinking about what you are doing. Just in case people struggle to remember to use their brain, i go through this process of decision making with people when they are learning to lead, so they understand why some routes are better choices than others, but i would have thought it was reasonably obvious. If it's not reasonably obvious, then it's just yet another reason why it's worth paying for an instructor to learn to lead.